Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Man arrested for Facebook comment threatening Gov. Haley's life
WIS TV ^ | November 23, 2011 | Logan Smith

Posted on 11/23/2011 3:28:11 PM PST by Jet Jaguar

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - A South Carolina man is accused of threatening the life of Gov. Nikki Haley on Facebook, but he claims he was only making a point about free speech.

When 26-year-old Nathan Shafer heard about the arrests of 19 Occupy Columbia members outside the State House last Wednesday, he did what lots of people do when they get angry -- he vented about it on the Internet. He saw Gov. Haley's Facebook post about the arrests and Haley's comment that she "appreciate[s] freedom of speech," and that's when authorities say Shafer crossed the line.

"I hope someone murders you before I do," Shafer said he commented on the post. "How's that for freedom of speech?"

The next day, Shafer says two State Law Enforcement Division agents visited him in Charlotte to discuss the comment. Shafer says he retracted and deleted his statement, promised he wasn't serious and apologized to the Haley family.

Still, Shafer says SLED agents called him again on Tuesday and told him he'll be prosecuted for the alleged threat. Shafer turned himself in at noon on Wednesday at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center.

"I just think the whole situation is completely ridiculous and blown out of proportion," Shafer wrote shortly before his arrest.

Threats against public officials are naturally taken very seriously, even when a comment was supposedly made in jest. In July, however, a federal court ruled that a man who posted online statements calling for President Barack Obama's assassination was merely exercising his free speech rights.

At issue, according to the court, is whether a "reasonable person" would view the statement in question as a genuine threat. In Shafer's case, that remains to be seen.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: facebook; haley; internet; ows; socialmedia; socialnetworking; socialnetworks; threat; threats

1 posted on 11/23/2011 3:28:13 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: upchuck; SC Swamp Fox

Ping


2 posted on 11/23/2011 3:28:45 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Threatening a Republican’s life is illegal?


3 posted on 11/23/2011 3:30:22 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

There are people in SC with a real hate for Gov. Haley....I spoke with a Dem neighbor that spoke in harsh language about her that I thought was reserved for Sarah Palin or President Bush.


4 posted on 11/23/2011 3:35:09 PM PST by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
A South Carolina man is accused of threatening the life of Gov. Nikki Haley on Facebook, but he claims he was only making a point about free speech.

He did a good job of demonstrating that threatening someone's life is NOT free speech.
5 posted on 11/23/2011 3:48:21 PM PST by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Mo Udall of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Words mean things...


6 posted on 11/23/2011 4:03:19 PM PST by Repeal The 17th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

He thinks this is blown out of proportion? Does he understand irony? He needs to be monitored by the criminal justice system until he gets a better perspective. Wishing one’s political opponents dead is really blowing things out of proportion.


7 posted on 11/23/2011 4:21:29 PM PST by MovementConservative (Go Mariners! 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

All such speech must be view within its context. This thug made his threat with a throng of hateful, vicious, proven lawbreakers at his back. It is every bit plausible that he would follow through with his threat.


8 posted on 11/23/2011 4:59:33 PM PST by fwdude ("When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

Exactly right!


9 posted on 11/23/2011 5:09:29 PM PST by DemforBush (Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad get me out of this!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

It’s not illegal in Wisconsin. Guess, S.C. is different.


10 posted on 11/23/2011 5:11:26 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Since we have equality before the law, do tell what happened to all the folks who ran around with Kill Bush signs, wrote newspaper columns lamenting that there was no John Wilkes Booth for Mr. Bush, and created a movie about the assassination of President Bush.

It really looks grossly hypocritical for the authorities to have such different reactions to "threats" to politicians. Are we supposed to believe "dissent is patriotic" only for one corner of the political spectrum?


11 posted on 11/23/2011 5:13:43 PM PST by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
It’s not illegal in Wisconsin. Guess, S.C. is different.

In Wisconsin, if it is done in order to protect union perks, money and power, it is considered self-defense.
12 posted on 11/23/2011 5:19:50 PM PST by Dr. Sivana (May Mitt Romney be the Mo Udall of 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; l8pilot; 2A Patriot; 2nd amendment mama; 4everontheRight; 77Jimmy; ...
Thanks for the ping.

South Carolina
Ping

Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.

13 posted on 11/23/2011 5:27:08 PM PST by upchuck (Rerun: Think you know hardship? Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Seriously

Artical 1 Section 2 of the South Carolina constitution states:
“SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition.

The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances. “

I like Nikki, I think she is one of the best governors of theses United States, certainly the hottest. But she much recognize that South Carolinian have the reserved right to say just not act to harm anther.


14 posted on 11/23/2011 6:02:00 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Threatening a Republican’s life is illegal?

Not in Wisconsin.

15 posted on 11/23/2011 8:47:12 PM PST by Mygirlsmom ("Get ready for an aberration of historic proportions" ...H Cain.."to correct the last one" MGM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; All

This is ridiculous. Typing words on a screen is a crime? We have no freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech we have no freedom. Why give government thugs more power to censor the Internet and to arrest you for what is on a web page? What if some one impersonating you types something on some web site and then government thugs then come arrest you and put you in prison ?

Look I hate liberals/democrats/socialists, but freedom of speech is very important.


16 posted on 11/23/2011 9:50:48 PM PST by Democrat_media (Why is no government creating a product we can hold in our hands like a cell phone..?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Thread bump.


17 posted on 11/24/2011 12:17:24 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

I agree.
Laws that protect elected officials from the words of the electorate are just one more way that the political class have used their positions to enact statutes to coddle themselves.
The First Amendment was put there specifically to protect political speech. Our Founding Fathers, and other politicians of the day endured much more in the way of hate speech than our pampered minders of today.
I love Governor Haley, by the way, but she needs to call the dogs off on this one.


18 posted on 11/24/2011 3:49:07 AM PST by PalmettoMason ("The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PalmettoMason
Get real. We have laws on the books about conveying a threat and I believe his 'words' fit the description of a threat: "I hope someone murders you before I do,"---pampered occupy punk to Governor Haley

16-17-735 False assertion of authority of law, in attempt to intimidate or hinder state or local official in discharge of duties, by threats or use of sham legal process.

16-3-1040(A) Threatening life, person or family of public official

16-8-240(B) Use of or threat of physical violence by criminal gang member

19 posted on 11/24/2011 6:48:37 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cindy

Thanks for the bump Cindy.


20 posted on 11/24/2011 7:58:33 AM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
At issue, according to the court, is whether a "reasonable person" would view the statement in question as a genuine threat. In Shafer's case, that remains to be seen.

Here's the rub. IN CONTEXT, a "reasonable" person could swing either way. I'm something of an absolutist when it comes to the first amendment, so seems to me he's making a point--an extreme point, a distasteful point, but a point nonetheless--about what he perceives to be Gov. Haley's disregard for free speech.

But.

I also think if you're stupid enough to say something like that in print and with your real name on it you can't expect nothing to happen.

So basically it comes down to which 12 people wind up in the box and I'll shed no tears nor celebrate either way.
21 posted on 11/24/2011 8:02:28 AM PST by OnlyTurkeysHaveLeftWings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
"I hope someone murders you before I do," Shafer said he commented on the post. "How's that for freedom of speech?"

Damn, dude. That was freakin' stupid.

22 posted on 11/24/2011 8:04:01 AM PST by Lazamataz (Monkeys do not like getting slapped, contrary to popular belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
We have Constitutional Law and Obama Law.....and never the twain shall meet.

Obama Law trumps all.

Leni

23 posted on 11/24/2011 8:06:30 AM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
We have Constitutional Law and Obama Law.....and never the twain shall meet.

Speaking of Twain, he wrote ...

It would not be possible for Noah to do in our day what he was permitted to do in his own ... The inspector would come and examine the Ark, and make all sorts of objections.

24 posted on 11/24/2011 10:01:26 AM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PalmettoMason

“I agree.
Laws that protect elected officials from the words of the electorate are just one more way that the political class have used their positions to enact statutes to coddle themselves.
The First Amendment was put there specifically to protect political speech. Our Founding Fathers, and other politicians of the day endured much more in the way of hate speech than our pampered minders of today.
I love Governor Haley, by the way, but she needs to call the dogs off on this one.”

I agree except the 1st amendment to the Federal Constitution Most explicitly does not apply here. What apples here is Article 1 section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution which as I quoted has very much the same restriction upon South Carolinian as the 1st Amendment to the Federal Constitution has on the Federal Goverment.

We need to be specific, Federal usurpation of incorporation MUST be overturned along with all other Federal usurpation. It is not authorized nor is it needed.


25 posted on 11/24/2011 11:20:54 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Throw the simple little twink in jail. Fine with me.


26 posted on 11/24/2011 11:26:39 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

You’re welcome Jet Jaguar.

I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving.


27 posted on 11/25/2011 1:11:33 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Since when are threats 'Freedom of Speech' rights, JJ? Or is this just a case that'll be passed over because it involves another Occupy movement?

Nothing like an apology before the arraignment.
28 posted on 11/25/2011 1:46:57 AM PST by BIGLOOK (Keelhaul Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BIGLOOK

Actually, I posted the article to show the media bias. Remember when the TEA party was getting all sorts of bad press? I do not recall a single TEA party person calling for the death of liberals and getting arrested. This guy is a OWS nutter.


29 posted on 11/25/2011 7:51:11 AM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson